Joshua Corona

Scientists study quarks, atoms, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, communities, populations, the biosphere and the universe. One primary reason that epistemological complexity exists in the social sciences is because the ontological units become less like one another as the phenomena of interest grows larger and more complex. This reality necessitates an oft cited claim in scholarly seminars: humans and their societies are complex and difficult to study. Stated simply, individual humans are unlikely to act or behave predictably and stochastically in the same way that cells under a microscope would be expected to behave when exposed to stimuli. Humans are more likely to act as an outcome of their respective environments and life experiences. It is therefore critically important to establish research programs to investigate the full extent of human variability within a phenomenon (such as intergroup avoidance) in order to generalize empirical results among human societies.

A key contribution of fly-on-the-wall studies to the social scientist’s toolkit is the ability to explore the equifinality and multifinality of an outcome of interest. Equifinality is the ability for different events or stimuli (or potentially various stimuli in conjunction with one another) to produce the same observable outcome. Whereas multifinality suggests that the effect of an independent variable of interest on an outcome of interest will vary in different systems. “Actual effects will depend on the conditions set by the values of additional components with which it is structurally linked.” ^[1] It is entirely possible that various stimuli result in the same behavioral or psychological outcome that we can observe during human interactions. 

For example, one potential fly-on-the-wall study might investigate how individuals with different phenotypic traits act differently around one another. However, it is possible that perceptions of socioeconomic status, or where the interaction is taking place, makes an enormous difference in the treatment effects we observe. For example, individuals perceived as female might be more likely to place greater distance between themselves and individuals perceived as males in public spaces. But it is also possible that greater distance is placed between males of a perceived outgroup and those who might be perceived to be of a lower socioeconomic class. Subjects’ identities play a role in their observed behaviors as a result of the social and political forces that have shaped their life experiences. 

Fly-on-the-wall studies allow us to investigate all of the previously stated hypotheses and can also determine which factor(s) generates the largest treatment effect on an outcome of interest. Fly-on-the-wall studies explore the constellation of factors related to perceptions of outgroup persons and the externalized behaviors of study participants around them. As a result, key areas of research where fly-on-the-wall studies can be employed is in the study of individual behavior and intergroup phenomena. Studying identity and behavior may be complex but with these research designs, we are able to observe a range of outcomes from repeated observations of similar stimuli. Their use is of particular value within political and social environments that experience increasing inequalities and conflict between social groups within them.

^[1] See: Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and psychopathology, 8(4), 597-600.